cultivating primary students’ scientific thinking through

Chapman UniversityChapman University Digital Commons

Education Faculty Articles and Research College of Educational Studies

2014

Cultivating Primary Students’ Scientific ThinkingThrough Sustained Teacher ProfessionalDevelopmentRoxanne Greitz MillerChapman University, [email protected]

Margaret Sauceda CurwenChapman University, [email protected]

Kimberly A. White-SmithChapman University, [email protected]

Robert C. CalfeeStanford University

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/education_articles

Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Elementary Education and TeachingCommons, Other Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons, and the Scienceand Mathematics Education Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Educational Studies at Chapman University Digital Commons. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Education Faculty Articles and Research by an authorized administrator of Chapman University Digital Commons. For moreinformation, please contact [email protected].

Recommended CitationMiller, R. G., Curwen, M. S., White-Smith, K. A. & R. C. Calfee. (2014). Cultivating Primary Students’ Scientific Thinking ThroughSustained Teacher Professional Development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(4), 1-10. doi: 10.1007/s10643-014-0656-3

http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu?utm_source=digitalcommons.chapman.edu%2Feducation_articles%2F26&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/education_articles?utm_source=digitalcommons.chapman.edu%2Feducation_articles%2F26&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/ces?utm_source=digitalcommons.chapman.edu%2Feducation_articles%2F26&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/education_articles?utm_source=digitalcommons.chapman.edu%2Feducation_articles%2F26&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/786?utm_source=digitalcommons.chapman.edu%2Feducation_articles%2F26&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages






mailto:[email protected]

Cultivating Primary Students’ Scientific Thinking Through SustainedTeacher Professional Development

CommentsThis is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Early ChildhoodEducation Journal, volume 43, issue 4, in 2014 following peer review. The final publication is available atSpringer via DOI: 10.1007/s10643-014-0656-3.

CopyrightSpringer

This article is available at Chapman University Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/education_articles/26

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-014-0656-3

http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/education_articles/26?utm_source=digitalcommons.chapman.edu%2Feducation_articles%2F26&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Running Head: CULTIVATING PRIMARY STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC THINKING

Cultivating primary students’ scientific thinking through

sustained teacher professional development

Roxanne Greitz Miller, Ed.D.

Chapman University

Margaret Sauceda Curwen, Ph.D

Chapman University

Kimberly A. White-Smith, Ed.D.

Chapman University

Robert C. Calfee, Ph.D.

Stanford University


1

Cultivating primary students’ scientific thinking through

sustained teacher professional development

Introduction

While the United States’ National Research Council (NRC 2012) and Next Generation

Science Standards (NGSS 2013) advocate children’s engagement in active science learning,

elementary grades teachers in the U.S. indicate they do not have enough time to teach science

regularly because of pressure to focus on English language arts and mathematics – the subjects

that constitute the largest weights in mandated assessments under the U.S Congress’ No Child

Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (FDR Research Group 2011). The result is science instruction

has been reduced in, or eliminated from, many U.S. elementary classrooms, particularly in

primary (Kindergarten-first-second) grades. Such is the case in the state of California (Dorph,

Shields, Tiffany-Morales, Hartry, & McCaffrey 2011), where our work is based.

While lessening focus on assessment results and providing adequate time for teaching

science might seem an easy solution, many teachers in the Dorph et al. study (2011) report being

under-prepared in science content knowledge and consequently hesitant to teach science even if

time to do so existed. The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) asserts “…teachers need

science-specific pedagogical content knowledge” (2012 p. 256) and, for busy practicing teachers,

the main way they enhance their pedagogical knowledge is through professional development

(PD). Budget cuts in California, as in many U.S. states, have significantly curtailed professional

development, especially in science where eighty-five percent (85%) of teachers surveyed

reported not receiving science PD within the previous three years (Dorph et al. 2011 p. 40).

This exclusion of teacher PD in science content, and the teaching of science from


2

elementary curricula, contributes to propagating intellectual poverty among students, particularly

those experiencing economic poverty and for whom English is not their primary language, as

they are often enrolled in schools facing greatest administrative pressure to narrow the

curriculum (Jennings & Renter 2006; Zwiep, Straits, Stone, Beltran, & Furtado 2011). As a

possible remedy to this problem, Project SMART (Science, Mathematics, Reading and

Technology), a grant-based teacher professional development program, offered a research-based

design aligned with Common Core State Standards’ (CDE 2011) recommendations to teach

science to young children in conjunction with literacy and mathematics, in order to increase

instructional efficacy through integrated curriculum.

Project SMART was conducted over three school years in 13 schools within one

midsized, urban public elementary school district in southern California. The study included 49

volunteer teachers and 1,535 students; 83% of these students participated in the federal lunch

subsidy program and 62% were English learners. Teachers’ years of experience ranged from one

year to over 30; however, only 5% of the teachers held advanced degrees, far lower than the 40%

average for other southern California districts. As part of a broader study on the project’s impact,

this article presents qualitative evidence from the teacher participants and examples

illustrative of the integrated lessons teachers used. Teachers’ comments provide insight that,

through sustained professional development, they were able to increase their science content

knowledge, overcome their hesitancy to teach science, and use integrated science-based

instruction as a way to support primary grade students’ learning.

Meeting teachers’ needs through effective science professional development

When reviewing reform efforts, teachers are referred to as the “linchpin in any effort to

change K-12 science education” (NRC 2012 p. 255) and, as such, their professional development


3

is critical (Banilower, Heck, & Weiss 2007; cf. NRC 2012). Opfer and Pedder’s (2011) meta

analysis summarizes that successful teacher PD attends to three interrelated and mutually

informing “systems”: the learning activity system (PD activities, their coherence, opportunities

for reflection and time for supervised application of new learning), the teacher learning system

(teacher’s beliefs, values and perceptions) and the school/district systemic context (school

practice, routine, and policies). Authentic teacher learning thrives when developed, implemented,

and supported in all three interrelated systems. The Project SMART professional development

program supported teachers in deepening their understanding of science content, addressed the

additional conceptual and practical needs of the “teacher learning system and school/district

systemic contexts” mentioned previously, and attempted to maximize influence on teacher

practice by addressing social psychological factors as well. The ultimate goal of this integrated

PD program approach was to impact: (1) teachers’ science content knowledge, (2) science

instructional time, and (3) instructional efficacy.

Project SMART addressed increasing teacher content knowledge by providing ongoing

science PD by university science faculty: content area experts. “Adult” levels of science content

related to the topics in K-2 science standards were presented; vertical and horizontal articulation

was addressed so teachers at each grade level understood science content in grades below and

above their own, as well within each grade. Social interaction was integrated into the science

content lessons; teachers worked in cooperative groups across schools/grade levels to address

social motivation and to increase interaction, thus creating a supportive collegial network.

Project SMART maintained that science instruction must begin in the primary grades and

continue for all students in each subsequent grade level and used the Science-Cognition-Literacy

(SCL) Framework model (Miller 2006; 2007; Figure 1) in an interdisciplinary manner (science,


4

language arts, mathematics) to address the tension of limited instructional time and resources. An

integrated curriculum was our deliberate response to structural limitations in U.S. schools and is

consistent with the view that content knowledge is acquired simultaneously in multiple domains,

and skills in literacy and mathematics are central to scientific understanding and communication.

Figure 1. Science-Cognition-Literacy Framework (Miller 2006).

The three SCL Framework phases – acquisition, internalization, and transformation –

address essential constructivist elements of learning, consistent with research on integrating

science and literary experiences (e.g., Chambliss and Calfee 1998; Guthrie, Wigfield, & Von

Secker 2000; Norris & Phillips 2003; Miller 2007). University education faculty guided teachers

through curriculum analysis of unifying themes, and taught them how to use science to teach

literacy and mathematics standards, again lending horizontal and vertical coherence to the PD

and addressing needs of teachers employed predominately in schools under sanctions to “stick”

to teaching language arts and mathematics. Consistent with the characteristics of quality PD,

teachers actively created their own interdisciplinary lesson plans – rather than being given


5

“scripted lessons” – and collaborated with colleagues across grades and schools. Peer and

research team observations of classroom teaching and reflection sessions provided feedback on

new practice.

Teachers’ need to concentrate on instructional efficiency was addressed through the

integrated (science, math, reading) curriculum. The PD targeted three key science inquiry skills

attainable by primary grade students – predicting, observing, and explaining (P-O-E) and

developing teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers were involved in multiple hands-

on science experiences focused on these three skills and on increasing student P-O-E capacity in

science and reading and their predicting skill in mathematics. Teachers organized

interdisciplinary science-literacy-mathematics lessons around P-O-E skills. The P-O-E

organizing structure was mapped onto a Lesson Plan Template that classroom teachers used in

planning and delivering integrated science and literary instruction. To provide for horizontal and

vertical coherence, the research team extracted the “themes” of the district’s basal reading series’

units in grades K, 1, and 2 and made explicit connections in the reading series to science and

mathematics. During PD sessions and reciprocal peer coaching experiences over the three-year

project, teachers reflected collaboratively on lessons’ effectiveness; student knowledge was

evaluated by the project team annually on an End-of-Year written science content assessment.

Sample Unit and Focus

To better understand the connections between the science content learned in the

professional development sessions and the integration of the science, math, reading and

technology in classroom instruction, we describe one of the units presented at the Kindergarten

grades early in the school year. The theme found in the basal reading series was “Look at Us!”

and contained readings where students learn about their personal characteristics, parts of the


6

face, their hands, naming peoples’ feelings based on their facial expressions and gestures, and

using sensory words. This reading unit corresponded well with the science topic of the five

senses, because of the explicit connections within the reading series to sensory words, and

because we use our five senses to discover things about ourselves and the world around us. All

three science inquiry terms at the center of the project – predict, observe, and explain – were

relevant into this reading theme, because observations are made with our five senses.

In one presentation during the science PD, to enable teachers to better understand the

sense of taste and its integration to additional senses (smell, touch), a university food scientist

presented a lesson to teachers about the different types of taste buds and flavors that trigger

reactions, going beyond the customary sweet/sour/bitter/salty and explained the interaction

between smell and taste. “Mouth feel”, the term that describes how food feels within the mouth,

was also presented, and the effect of mouth feel on peoples’ preferences for certain foods was

explored and prompted engaging conversations about cultural differences. To connect math to

the lessons, Kindergarten math concepts of identifying, counting, sorting and classifying were

integrated into the PD activities and simple data tables were used to tally quantifiable data from

observations, modeling how teachers could use these tables in their own lessons. As a technology

extension, teachers were taught how to use USB temperature probes, and were shown how to use

them in relevant ways, such as measuring the temperature of students’ hands under different

conditions, including inside a mitten, which corresponded to the ancillary children’s book, The

Mitten (Brett, 1989), used during this reading unit.

Resulting classroom science lessons included a “Lifesaver Lab” where students tasted

different fruit flavor and mint candies with their noses closed and then open, marking on a

simple data table their prediction beforehand if there would be any difference in taste, and then


7

their observations and explanations; a sound activity where students predicted what sound would

come from different size bottles when blown into or tapped, and then observed and explained

their experiences; a math activity where students counted and classified the students in their class

based on eye color; and a Sense Walk to be done at home, with students going through one room

in their home and using sight, smell, and touch to observe at least 10 objects and having an adult

write down their observations, to be shared later in class. (See Appendix for unit plan.)

Teachers’ Experiences

To capture teacher pedagogical shifts and their evolving views on teaching, the following

qualitative sources were collected: teacher interviews, classroom observations, surveys, journals,

student artifacts, and comments from PD sessions. This section details findings from the end-of-

project Teacher Reflective Journal, in which teachers responded to prompts regarding changes in

instructional practice, perceived student change, benefits and challenges of project participation,

and future plans. Teacher comments were broken into smaller units using open coding (Strauss

& Corbin 1998) and analyzed by the research team. Key terms were identified and used to refine

codes, e.g., words such as “afraid” and “fear” indicated prior perceptions of teaching science.

Four major strands among teacher quotes emerged, with findings triangulated through

other data sources, including the research team’s observations of classroom instruction and

teacher interviews. Because teacher perspectives and skill were not necessarily aligned with

years of teaching experience, we include years of experience here, categorized as: 0-5 years is

beginner; 6-10 years is early career; 11-20 years is mid-career; and, 21+ years is late career.

Listening to Teachers’ Perspectives

After three years of Project SMART professional development, primary grade teachers’

shifts were evident in these four major strands: 1) confidence in and knowledge of science


8

content; 2) perceived impact on student learning; 3) collaboration with peers in refining their

teaching; and 3) perceptions of “permission” to teach science. (To best represent the teachers’

voices and for ease of reading, teachers’ emic language is italicized and included in quotations.)

These four major strands were further analyzed for sub-categories and the findings are

represented in each as depicted below in Table 1, with representative quotes.

Table 1. Qualitative Findings.

Strand Sub-categories Frequency

Example teacher comment and level of

teaching experience:

Teacher

confidence

and

knowledge

(a) Increased existing

science content

knowledge

18

“Given me the tools to better teach the

science standards and thoroughly enjoy

each moment.” (early career)

(b) Increased

confidence as an

educator

28

“[M]ost significant….is the

knowledge…to use science across the

curriculum.” (mid-career)

(c) Value of learning

from university

professors

6

“We actually learned geology,

oceanography, physical, and life science.”

(late career)

(d) Previous lack of

science knowledge 5

“[D]eveloped an interest [in science] that I

never had before.” (beginner)

Impact on

student

learning

(a) Students’

academic growth 19

“Science needs to be used in creating

thinkers for our future.” (early career)

(b) Science lessons as

engaging and

motivating

8

“Science lessons became a prize, a

motivator for good behavior.” (early

career)

(c) Teachers’

epiphany on

practice

6

“Perhaps one of the best outcomes was my

willingness to let the kids get their hands

dirty and figure things out for themselves.”

(late career)

Learning

through

collaboration

15 “…working together as a community

[helped our learning]” (mid-career)

Permission to

teach science

15

“I feel like I have been given the

permission to take the time to let students

enjoy experimentation and playing with

experiments.” (mid-career)

Increased confidence and science knowledge

Related to increased confidence in the teaching of science, eight teachers used the terms


9

“confidence” or “self-confidence” to indicate shifts toward including science pedagogy in their

classrooms as a result of the PD experiences with content instruction, lesson ideas, and coherent

ways of linking concepts to the district language arts, math, and science texts. This university

support provided teachers tools to return to their classrooms with a “yearning to teach science”

and with gained expertise. This notion was exemplified through one teacher’s reflection on now

being “confident when I teach science and students ask me questions,” documenting impact on

teachers’ beliefs about themselves. Given that primary students range from five-year to eight-

year-olds and have a natural sense of wonder, the teachers’ ability to respond to children’s

curiosity is crucial. For some teachers, their lack of content knowledge previously resulted in

relatively low comfort level in teaching science—even to the extent of one mid-career teacher’s

admission of being “afraid” to teach science before starting the PD. Through the project,

teachers’ use of materials and resources provided by the Project SMART facilitators, the district

advisor, and science consultant, addressed such discomfort and provided a “safe” space to try

new things and be supported in doing so.

In relation to science knowledge, evidentiary comments often used comparative terms

(i.e., “greater” or “more”) or temporal terms (i.e., “now” or “before”) related to their content

expertise. Several teachers indicated Project SMART refined their current knowledge by

acquiring a “greater understanding” of scientific concepts. A mid-career educator recognized

how the PD fortified her existing knowledge gaps by stating the Project “helped fill a lot of

holes.” Teachers voiced “more extensive understanding of basic scientific principles”; “[M]ost

significant…is the knowledge… to use science across the curriculum”; and, “[PD] gave me

more thorough understanding of the different areas of science.”

While many teachers viewed Project SMART’s support in increasing their scientific


10

knowledge, four individuals frankly remarked on their lack of science knowledge prior to

participating in the project. Of particular note is one late career teacher who acknowledged the

Project, “Has made me a much better science teacher…science knowledge was new to me.”

Teachers also shared a newfound affinity for science: “I never liked science when I was

younger”; and, “[I’ve] developed an interest [in science] that I never had before.”

Regarding the participation of science faculty as content experts, teachers related the

caliber of instruction instrumental to their deep content learning. Two teachers even referred to

the PD sessions as a “course” and “class/seminar/meeting.” The following evidentiary quotes

capture the credibility of university personnel whose instruction elevated the professional

development from a typically brief one- or two-session teacher in-service to more robust and

authentic learning experiences over time, another research-based identified aspect of successful

PD (Desimone 2009): “We actually learned geology, oceanography, physical, and life science”;

“The professors gave us background knowledge so I was confident when teaching my students.”

Impact on Student Learning

The next major strand of the findings was how teachers perceived the impact of Project

SMART on their students’ learning, and therefore the ultimate teacher value of the PD

experience. Teachers perceived teaching science was instrumental in shaping “well-rounded

students” and also developing “critical thinkers.”

An example of student learning through the predict-observe-explain science inquiry skills

framework was captured in one Kindergarten class’ extended unit, titled “Animals That Hatch”,

which was linked to the English language arts vocabulary and concept development from the

district’s basal reading series. As part of the prediction component, students recorded their

thoughtful guesses on which animals might hatch from eggs through their illustrations and


11

labeling on a circle Thinking Map® (see Photo 1). Over the next few weeks, students recorded

their observations of the changes in live caterpillars and incubating duck eggs brought into the

classroom. Further observational data was included in math lessons, as students categorized other

animals that hatch from eggs and identified different types of birds, insects, and reptiles (see

Photo 2). Children also counted and graphed the number of legs for several different animals. In

the explain lesson component, students engaged in writing reports about different animals using

the internet as a resource for additional information. This provided an opportunity for students to

use the genre of report writing to construct a meaningful message and use conventions of

grammar, capitalization, and punctuation. Students were scaffolded first by writing

collaboratively in a group and then creating individual reports (see Photo 3).

Photo 1. Prediction circle map

on animals that hatch.

Photo 2. Observation and classification of

birds, insects and reptiles.


12

Photo 3. Observe and explain report on Chrysalis.

These teachers’ pre-planning on linking science with math, language arts, and technology

helped students conceive of their learning in a holistic manner. Because educational experiences

shape the way individuals orient themselves to the world and “move through their world and act

on it” (Rose 2012 p. 29), such student engagement has potential to motivate children (and

teachers) to inculcate dispositions towards learning science early.

Upon integrating more science instruction, teachers recognized a change in their students’

affect, noting the quality of questions and authentic engagement in the classroom. One teacher

reported science was now a unifying element in her classroom. In her estimation, this inclusive

aspect was vital for the English learners who were able to engage in the “universal language” of

scientific exploration, thus ameliorating differences between cultural groups. These teacher

comments were substantiated by numerous classroom observations in which children engaged in

talking, listening, and documenting their scientific notations during hands-on science activities. It


13

was not unusual for children to code-switch between English and Spanish to make peer learning

more accessible.

Overall, teachers were pleased with students’ response, as one teacher described surprise

at continually finding evidence of students “thinking so outside of the box.” For another teacher,

project participation gave her the impetus to create a learner-centered classroom environment

noting, “I have become aware of how important science is to my students.” The teachers

realized, upon observing their primary students’ engagement, that teaching science was not an

option but a necessity in the youngsters’ school experiences.

Learning through Peer Collaboration

Teachers clearly valued becoming “a cohesive group” in their growth as science teachers

(NRC 2012) and the social effect of the PD (Patterson et al. 2008). This collaboration occurred in

three distinct ways. One aspect of shared learning took place during PD when teachers

participated in “[science] experiments with other teachers.” A second aspect was the manner in

which teachers were provided time to discuss lesson plan design as a grade level team with other

such teams across school sites, addressing the reflective element needed in PD (Opfer & Pedder

2011). The third type of collaboration took place on school sites with peer observations and

feedback, again centering on social motivation and ability (Patterson et al. 2008).

An example of such peer collaboration occurred among the second grade teachers during

the second summer of PD. After receiving a science content lesson from university faculty on

objects in motion one late career, one mid-career, and one beginner teacher formed a group and

designed a collaborative lesson on ramps for their students (see Photo 4). The late career teacher

took the role of English language development facilitator, and worked on the portion of the

lesson where content-specific vocabulary would be front-loaded. The second teacher worked on


14

the math and technology connections, deciding to offer students digital stopwatches to record the

time it took for objects to travel down the ramp and rulers for students to be able to use the ramps

as examples of triangles and measure them in centimeters. The third teacher handled the science

portion of the lesson, discussing with students variables that effect motion (such as angle of

ramp, friction, and gravity) and how the lesson would be presented in terms of the P-O-E skills

(see Photo 5 for student work). Cooperatively, these teachers delivered the lesson during the

summer PD to second grade students, with each teacher modeling for the other two her

presentation style and format. This modeling supported these teachers when they independently

replicated the entire lesson in their own classrooms during the regular school year.

Photo 4. Objects in Motion P-O-E lesson plan – Second Grade.


15

Photo 5. Student work from Objects in Motion lesson.


16

One teacher noted the value of peer consultations such as this “enable[d] us to extend our

lessons, improve our lessons, and [be] encouraged and supported [by] our peers.” These

teachers’ statements reinforce the application of social psychology theory on social motivation

and ability helping to sustain long-term change (Patterson et al. 2008).

“Permission” to Teach Science

Multiple teachers remarked participation in Project SMART gave them “permission” to

teach science in their classrooms, thus removing structural barriers previously in place. It was

somewhat surprising that more than a third of the 49 teachers’ comments related to teachers’

perception that the aegis of Project SMART provided an “excuse” to keep science instruction in

their classroom. This finding is best explained by placing Project SMART within the national

and local educational contexts. The No Child Left Behind (2001) national focus of accountability

vis-à-vis standardized testing of exclusively English language arts and math in the elementary

grades is reflected in this school district’s focus. During formal interviews, teachers conceded

that their schools’ evaluations – and their own – were based almost exclusively on reading and

math test scores. Consequently, teachers often attended only to the mandated testing areas of

reading and math prior to the project.

Given this educational context, the teacher comments are more understandable. Teachers’

remarks reflect their perception that by participating in Project SMART they had the authority

and, as six teachers cited, the “permission,” or freedom, to integrate science into the classroom.

Unlike other typical PD where teachers might cite an additional burden of adding content to an

overcrowded curriculum, these teachers were eager to provide time for science using the

integrated method learned in PD. Their comments reflect a desire to seek out an “excuse to teach

science.” One teacher considered it “one of the [Project’s] greatest gifts.” Several teachers


17

expressed earning a pedagogical privilege; a mid-career teacher declared, “Project SMART has

given me the right to teach science” (emphasis in original). Teachers further commented that the

Project “[H]as given me the allowance to teach science and not feel guilty...” and “I feel like I

have been given the permission to take the time to let students enjoy experimentation and playing

with experiments.” After the project, teachers were able to demonstrate to administrators the

positive impact of science on students’ reading and math to legitimize continuing with regular

science instruction after the project’s end, but were faced with the district’s overall achievement

profile continuing to decline over time, with state sanctions on PD and instructional conformity

across schools and classrooms becoming ever more prescriptive.

Discussion

The following discussion section addresses what we propose were the most important

new “lessons learned about effective PD” from Project SMART and its impact on teachers’

learning from university experts, peers, and their own students.

Learning through Time and Trust Building

Contemporary understandings of quality teacher professional development include

attention to a variety of elements and perspectives; the process of developing teachers is

increasingly recognized as a “complex system rather than an event” (Opfer & Pedder 2011 p.

378; italics added). However, extended time is not only necessary for acquisition of deep

content; it is necessary for trust building between all participants. Through an extended three-

year participation in Project SMART, teachers had opportunities to engage in PD that allowed

them time to build trust between themselves as faculty from different schools, and with the

university team. We believe attention to time and trust is necessary to assist teachers engaging in

novel, and initially uncomfortable practices—such as peer observation of classroom practice—


18

and in viewing PD providers as true partners in their efforts, and in obtaining honest feedback

about teacher knowledge and practice during PD sessions.

Learning from the Experts

Participating teachers indicated the caliber of instruction provided by university science

and education faculty was paramount to overcoming their trepidation in providing science

instruction. Young children’s ability to learn science is dependent on teachers’ deep content

knowledge and ability to convey information in developmentally appropriate ways (Banilower,

Heck, & Weiss 2007; NRC 2012). Without the requisite knowledge, teachers are constrained in

developing scientific thinking and engagement, and, in our case, science content and pedagogy

faculty were instrumental in assisting teachers to move their skills forward.

Learning from One Another

Teachers in Project SMART found the collaboration with peers highly significant. Often

accustomed to working behind the closed doors of their individual classrooms and even more so

within their own schools, Project SMART teachers gained facility in sharing their developing

understanding with their peers across the district by collaborating on lesson planning and

implementation. Through observation of peers’ instruction and candid discussions after, teachers

created an adult community of learners and a “shared understanding” of instruction and young

children’s science learning (NRC 2012 p. 246).

Learning from Children

The participating teachers in Project SMART provide evidence that young children

flourish with active science education. Despite the high number of students in the Project who

were English learners, virtually none of the participating teachers provided any indication that

children had difficulty using scientific academic language and the Project’s three key inquiry


19

skills of predicting, observing, and explaining. Classroom observations by peers and by

researchers provide further support for the proposition that the children in this California school

district from diverse backgrounds, from low socio-economic communities, and who are English

language learners, thrive in student-centered hands-on learning.

Working Smarter

Disturbingly, teachers in this study reported having little time to teach science, but did

not instinctively turn to curriculum connections between science and other subjects as a natural

way to include science in their instructional schedule, perhaps due to their prior lack of

confidence or limited science content knowledge. Project SMART enabled teachers to create

exemplary in which teachers taught science in conjunction with other subjects. It is clear that

structural barriers need to be removed, or at least lessened, for teachers to feel they have

“permission” to teach in this integrated manner, but this project shows rather clearly that

integrated instruction at the primary grade levels can be effectively utilized to increase student

knowledge and engagement in science.

Closing Thoughts

It is hoped that providing examples of successful, integrated approaches to long-term

professional development and content instruction, like Project SMART, and sharing the voices of

teachers who experience such involvement, will ultimately support changes in the way we

approach teacher professional development and primary grades science instruction in the United

States. Creating in young children the habits of mind that support content exploration and

investigation, and in an integrated manner which capitalizes on all subject areas – language arts,

science, and mathematics – simultaneously provides a way for children of diverse backgrounds

to come together around a common scholastic endeavor and build their social capacities as well


20

as content knowledge. However, we acknowledge that forces external to the classroom, most

notably high-stakes assessment, which impose threats to such integrated approaches, must also

be reformed for any type of lasting, systemic change to occur. Only when these external

constraints are removed will our primary grades teachers truly have the “right” to teach science

and cultivate primary students’ scientific thinking, as they so clearly communicated they were

able to do within this project.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Program (Award 07-

412) of the California Postsecondary Education Commission.


21

References

Banilower, E.R., Heck, D.J., & Weiss, I.R. (2007). Can professional development make the

vision of the standards a reality? The impact of the National Science Foundation’s Local

Systemic Change through Teacher Enhancement Initiative. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 44(3), 375-395.

California Department of Education (CDE). (2011) A Look at Kindergarten in California Public

Schools and the Common Core State Standards. Downloaded from

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/documents/glckindercurriculum.pdf

Chambliss, M.J., & Calfee, R.C. (1998). Textbooks for learning: Nurturing children’s minds.

Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:

Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.

Dorph, R., Shields, P., Tiffany-Morales, J., Hartry, A., & McCaffrey, T. (2011). High hopes—

Few opportunities: The status of elementary science education in California. Sacramento,

CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd. Retrieved 10-21-11

from http://www.cftl.org/documents/2011/StrengtheningScience_full.pdf

FDR Research Group, 2011. Learning Less: Public School Teachers Describe a Narrowing

Curriculum. Published December 8, 2011.

Guthrie J., Wigfield, A., & Von Secker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on

motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331-

341.

Jennings, J., & Renter, D. S. (2006). The Big Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on Public

Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110-113.

Miller, R.G. (2006). Unlocking reading comprehension with key science inquiry skills. Science

Scope, 30(1), 30-33.

Miller, R.G. (2007). Thinking like a scientist: Exploring transference of science inquiry skills to

literacy applications with kindergarten students. Electronic Journal of Literacy Through

Science, 6(1), 41-53.

National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,

crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New

K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral

and Social Sciences and Education Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Retrieved from: www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165

Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). (2013, April). Conceptual Shifts in the Next

Generation Science Standards, page 5. Downloaded from:

http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix%20A%20-

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/documents/glckindercurriculum.pdf

http://www.cftl.org/documents/2011/StrengtheningScience_full.pdf

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165

http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix%20A%20-%204.11.13%20Conceptual%20Shifts%20in%20the%20Next%20Generation%20Science%20Standards.pdf


22

%204.11.13%20Conceptual%20Shifts%20in%20the%20Next%20Generation%20Scienc

e%20Standards.pdf

Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to

scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.

Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of

Educational Research, 81(3). 376-407.

Patterson, K., Grenny, J., Maxfield, D., MacMillan, R. & Switzler, A. (2008). Influencer: The

power to change anything. New York: McGraw Hill.

Rose, M. (2012). Back to school: Why everyone deserves a second chance at education. New

York: The New Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

U.S. Congress. (2001). No child left behind act of 2001. Public Law 107–110. 107th Congress.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Zwiep, S. G., Straits, W. J., Stone, K., Beltran, D., & Furtado, L. (2011). The integration of

English language development and science instruction in elementary classrooms. Journal

of Science Teacher Education, 22(8), 769-785.

Texts cited:

Brett, Jan (1989). The Mitten. G.P. Putnam’s Sons. New York.


23

cultivating primary students’ scientific thinking through

Documents